Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26820750›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Perceptions of Private Medical Practitioners on Tuberculosis Notification: A Study from Chennai, South India.

Beena Elizabeth Thomas, Banurekha Velayutham, Kannan Thiruvengadam, Dina Nair, Sukendu Bikas Barman, Lavanya Jayabal, Senthanro Ovung, Soumya Swaminathan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Tuberculosis in South Asia: a tide in the affairs of men.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Beena Elizabeth ThomasNational Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre), ICMR, Chennai, India.
Banurekha VelayuthamNational Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre), ICMR, Chennai, India.
Kannan ThiruvengadamNational Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre), ICMR, Chennai, India.
Dina NairNational Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre), ICMR, Chennai, India.
Sukendu Bikas BarmanNational Institute for Research in Tribal Health, ICMR, Jabalpur, India.
Lavanya JayabalCorporation of Chennai, Chennai, India.
Senthanro OvungNational Institute for Research in Tuberculosis (formerly Tuberculosis Research Centre), ICMR, Chennai, India.
Soumya SwaminathanDepartment of Health Research & Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Government of India declared TB as a notifiable disease in 2012. There is a paucity of information on the government's mandatory TB notification order from the perspective of private medical practitioners (PPs).

objectiveTo understand the awareness, perception and barriers on TB notification among PPs in Chennai, India.

methodsTotal of 190 PPs were approached in their clinics by trained field staff who collected data using a semi-structured and pre-coded questionnaire after getting informed consent. The data collected included PPs' specialization, TB management practices, awareness about the TB notification order, barriers in its implementation and their suggestions to improve notification.

resultsOf 190 PPs from varied specializations, 138 (73%) had diagnosed TB cases in the prior three months, of whom 78% referred these patients to government facilities. Of 138 PPs, 73% were aware of the order on mandatory TB notification, of whom 46 (33%) had ever notified a TB case. Of 120 PPs, 63% reported reasons for not notifying TB cases. The main reasons reported for not notifying were lack of time (50%), concerns regarding patients' confidentiality (24%) and fear of offending patients (11%). Of 145 PPs, 76% provided feedback about information they felt uncomfortable reporting during notification. PPs felt most uncomfortable reporting patient's government-issued Aadhar number (77%), followed by patient's phone number (37%) and residential address (26%). The preferred means of notification was through mobile phone communication (24%), SMS (18%) and e-mail (17%).

conclusionThis study highlights that one-fourth of PPs were not aware of the TB notification order and not all those who were aware were notifying. While it is important to sensitize PPs on the importance of TB notification it is also important to understand the barriers faced by PPs and to make the process user-friendly in order to increase TB notification.

Indexed as

Disease NotificationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth PolicyIndiaMandatory ReportingPerceptionPractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Private PracticeTruth DisclosureTuberculosis, Pulmonary

Identifiers

PMID26820750
PMCPMC4731139

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.